|
mcmagic posted:https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1192119152892399616 You've nailed it, there's literally no way for the current Governor of Louisiana to ever win an election as he is
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
theflyingorc posted:You've nailed it, there's literally no way for the current Governor of Louisiana to ever win an election as he is That was a Jones-like situation. The electoral strategy of "hope republicans nominate sex creeps" doesn't seem sustainable as he's probably going to lose re election just like Jones is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:That was a Jones-like situation. The electoral strategy of "hope republicans nominate sex creeps" doesn't seem sustainable as he's probably going to lose re election just like Jones is. The fact that it's on a Saturday probably also helps the minority vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
Edgar Allan Pwned posted:so what has to be done to get ohio blue? i mean if Virginia can become blue... His own campaign doesn't think the state is a lock.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
Edgar Allan Pwned posted:so what has to be done to get ohio blue? i mean if Virginia can become blue... The demographics in OH and VA are moving in the opposite directions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:That was a Jones-like situation. The electoral strategy of "hope republicans nominate sex creeps" doesn't seem sustainable as he's probably going to lose re election just like Jones is. IDK man there are a lot of republican sex creeps
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:How likely is it that the Kentucky Senate actually expends political capital on this? It seems like throwing good money after bad, especially when the GOP won every other statewide office. Why not just hamstring the Dem governor for a bit and just put Bevin out to pasture? That seems like the cleanest way of getting back to business as usual instead of risking a big backlash in the next election cycle. Just avoid walking into the healthcare trap next time and they’ll be fine. A lot of republicans really think that democrats turning populist is a flash in the pan like it was during the latter w years. They are willing to make that bet it is true again. Also only way forward for democrats in Ohio is populism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 18:47
|
|
|
Edgar Allan Pwned posted:so what has to be done to get ohio blue? i mean if Virginia can become blue... A time machine to start
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
Either Ohio is irredeemable or it’s a state that will back populist shut like when they voted to ban right to work.... nope they must be irredeemable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
I'm not from the US so I have to ask. Is there some way the KY GOP could actually prevent Beshear from being sworn in, aside from an actual recount that Bevin wins? Is it more complicated than just the governor-elect taking office and being done with it? I just don't see what they could actually do. Does the state senate need to confirm the winner of the election?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
Fabulous Knight posted:I'm not from the US so I have to ask. Is there some way the KY GOP could actually prevent Beshear from being sworn in, aside from an actual recount that Bevin wins? Is it more complicated than just the governor-elect taking office and being done with it? I just don't see what they could actually do. Does the state senate need to confirm the winner of the election? They're apparently referencing some old law that probably doesn't even say what they think it says. That would not be a normal resolution in any state in the US. Also, you don't really come back from 5000 vote deficits in recounts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Fabulous Knight posted:I'm not from the US so I have to ask. Is there some way the KY GOP could actually prevent Beshear from being sworn in, aside from an actual recount that Bevin wins? Is it more complicated than just the governor-elect taking office and being done with it? I just don't see what they could actually do. Does the state senate need to confirm the winner of the election? Apparently the law they're referring to states that the Kentucky general assembly can basically decide who actually wins but yeah it's probably a bit more complicated than that. Would love to know if they can actually gently caress this up for Beshear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
Liquid Banjo posted:Apparently the law they're referring to states that the Kentucky general assembly can basically decide who actually wins but yeah it's probably a bit more complicated than that. Would love to know if they can actually gently caress this up for Beshear. One thing I have learned these last few centuries: nothing is beneath the modern GOP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
They might just pass a law basically stripping the governor's office of all it's power like they did in WI.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
Fabulous Knight posted:I'm not from the US so I have to ask. Is there some way the KY GOP could actually prevent Beshear from being sworn in, aside from an actual recount that Bevin wins? Is it more complicated than just the governor-elect taking office and being done with it? I just don't see what they could actually do. Does the state senate need to confirm the winner of the election? Beshear will get sworn in, any recount will turn up maybe a dozen votes in total, and the Republican Legislature will more than likely take cues from North Carolina and Wisconsin (if they even need to go that far) and work legislatively to strip the new Dem governor of as much executive power as they can. From what 538 said, they only need a simple majority to overturn a veto, so they will just keep on doing terrible conservative stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:They might just pass a law basically stripping the governor's office of all it's power like they did in WI. They couldn't strip Evers' Frankenstein veto. Which works like this: mcmagic posted:They pass a law stripping the officer
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:They might just pass a law basically stripping the governor's office of all it's power like they did in WI. That's already the case, for legislative things. The Gov Veto is overridden by a simple majority, which a bill needs to even get passed. They could probably gut it even more by cutting back on executive branch powers, but that invites a court challenge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:This is day-after denial. The short answer is "No." Can't imagine the point of a veto if it's overturned by a majority. It already met that bar to hit the governor's desk! Also, it seems kinda dumb that so many states have bicameral legislatures, there's at least an argument (a bad one) for the US government representing the interests of both "states" and "the people at large", but...what does Virginia gain by having two houses? (it's apparently done this way in 49 out of 50 states, Nebraska being the only exception) edit: lol, didn't know about this: quote:In Reynolds v. Sims the Supreme Court decided upon the one man, one vote standard for state legislatures and invalidated representation based on geographical units regardless of population. (The ruling does not affect the U.S. Senate, because that chamber's makeup is prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
There's a plausible argument to be made that the states of a federation should have miniature versions of the federal government to ease the understandability of politics, but on the other hand even with that state politics is still way different from federal, and if you took that to its logical conclusion county and city governments ought to be bicameral as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:There's a plausible argument to be made that the states of a federation should have miniature versions of the federal government to ease the understandability of politics, but on the other hand even with that state politics is still way different from federal, and if you took that to its logical conclusion county and city governments ought to be bicameral as well. I think I'm firmly on team Abolish All the Senates now
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
Bicameral's fine. It's the 'one house for people and one house for land' bit thats stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Bicameral's fine. It's the 'one house for people and one house for land' bit thats stupid. If both houses are for the people why do you need two of them
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Can't imagine the point of a veto if it's overturned by a majority. It already met that bar to hit the governor's desk! Same as with that dumbass movement to repeal direct election of senators.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:If both houses are for the people why do you need two of them I could make an argument for two houses if one was a large number of elected representatives each with a smaller number of constituents to represent specific communities and give voice to smaller groups then the other is smaller in size representing larger districts or even at large to temper the local concerns with reps that are looking at what's good for the state as a whole. I don't know if I buy it, but that's basically how it's done anyway. And the same thing could be accomplished in a unicameral legislature by having a mix of district and at large or regional seats so 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:If both houses are for the people why do you need two of them We go now to Senator Geralt (I - Rivia) for an explanation
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
There's an argument to be made that isn't entirely stupid on it's face that dividing government between a branch that's very responsive to the current mood, and one that changes a bit more slowly, has some advantages. I don't know that I buy that argument, but a bicameral legislature isn't like, completely ridiculous in my mind.
cheetah7071 fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Nov 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
My state has the stupidest legislature. 30 districts of equal population, each elects two representatives and one senator to a 2 year term. I don't understand the point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Bicameral's fine. It's the 'one house for people and one house for land' bit thats stupid. I mean - it's nowhere as egregious as the Senate, but what's the point? They represent the same people in different combinations. Just seems like a huge waste of effort.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
Virginia doesn't have a bicameral legislature because the federal government does; if anything the causality works the other way. Ultimately, both have bicameral legislatures because Parliament is bicameral and that's what the people setting these deals up were familiar with. In contemporary English political science it was believed that the English government, being made up of a monarch (an autocrat), some Lords (an oligarchy), and the Commons (democracy), could partake of the best parts of all three while avoiding their pitfalls (dictatorship, plutocracy, and demagoguery respectively, according to them). Virginia's colonial legislature emulated the original, being made up of a House of Burgesses (today's Delegates, the Commons-analogue) and a Council of State, who were mostly wealthy planters appointed by the governor or by the Crown, and with the governor acting as a proxy for the monarch. It was a fairly successful model (for the planters, at least), and one the other colonies implemented with various tweaks of their own. The 1776 Constitution replaced the Council with the Senate, which was designed to be less frequently elected and represent more people, with the intention of serving as a deliberative chamber like the Lords. The federal legislative system is an adaptation of the post-1776 Virginia one by Madison, who kludged it so the Senate would represent the States to appease the small ones who had really liked each state having one equal vote in the Confederation Congress and the House seats would be apportioned by population to appease the large ones who hadn't. As for why the states still have bicameral legislatures, it's mostly because some are left over from their colonial structures and nobody's bothered to change it, and by the time we were making new States they just started copying what had been working and didn't bother to change it. Except Nebraska.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:There's an argument to be made that isn't entirely stupid on it's face that dividing government being a branch that's very responsive to the current mood, and one that changes a bit more slowly, has some advantages. I don't know that I buy that argument, but a bicameral legislature isn't like, completely ridiculous in my mind. If the U.S. Senate were just a smaller version of the House but with longer individual terms of office it would probably solve a lot of problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:If the U.S. Senate were just a smaller version of the House but with longer individual terms of office it would probably solve a lot of problems. I've been saying 3 senators per state would atleast help the Senate update with national opinion more. No more good cycles or bad cycles based on what states just happen to have elections that year, every 2 years every state has a senatorial election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The demographics in OH and VA are moving in the opposite directions. Yeah, as a Virginia activist leader, I'd love to say that this is entirely our activism and clever organizing, but at least half of this is that places like Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William have been growing like gangbusters and all the in-movers are blue. Many of those seats we picked up in 2017 were seats that had been turning blue under incumbents' feet for years as a combination of white-collar white liberals and minorities moved in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
I really think the "one house for the people and one house for the land" makes a lot more sense in the early United States where there were a lot of people who looked at it more like how we look at the European Union than how we look at the USA now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
well you had to make concessions to the small states when you were trying to convince 13 more or less independent sovereign nations to give up their sovereignty to a federation
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:47
|
|
|
Ok, here's the plan: House: One representative for every 100,000 people. Geographically distributed into compact, contiguous (within reason, it's gonna get weird with islands) districts of approximately equal population across the US. Voting method: you have to get 100 signatures within your district to run, and each voter gets to cast one ballot that acts as a raffle ticket for the candidate of their choice, who is then chosen randomly. Senate: Every voter can join one "community" of their choice, with the consent of that community, or can be their own community of one. These communities represent micro-electoral coalitions. Communities can set their own rules, although they can't keep people from leaving or joining other communities. Each community can likewise join a community, and so on. The top 100 top level communities (i.e., aren't members of another community) by membership get to pick a senator. Suppose me and 8 other people in the country start talking and want to form a community called 'cool spot snes fan club', our electoral power is 9. Over time, we join some larger coalition of SNES fan groups, and that group ends up joining others until eventually we end up with a senator. One day, the 'cool spot genesis/megadrive' club contacts us and says, why don't you instead join the cool spot club, alongside 'cool spot game boy fan club' and others. We agree, and our 9 votes move to the other tree, possibly shifting the totals at the very top.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Ok, here's the plan: Eripsa, is that you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
Congrats to VA for joining the “newly-blue state government” club! If my experience with Polis and our newly-blue state legislature is anything to go by, you’ll be pleasantly surprised over the next year and more  With that being said, gently caress the stupid loving stingy-rear end voters in this state for shooting down Prop CC. It wasn’t even a full TABOR repeal, just the part where the state has to refund excess revenue to residents (it usually amounts to like $20 or so per person lmao) and people wouldn’t even sacrifice that Though Denver did vote overwhelmingly to create a city-level Department of Transportation with emphasis on multi-modal transport  so that’s giving my carless self some hope
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Ok, here's the plan: this system seems extremely gameable
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
The House is probably the bigger problem than the Senate, and not just because of the gerrymandering, but also because, for size reasons, they haven't increased it since 1912. This means that the number of people per house seat varies pretty widely by state, and, unlike the Senate, where that's obvious, in the House, its much less so. This leads to some pretty strange things, like Delaware only having one house seat for 900,000 people, while New Hampshire, which only has a hundred thousand more people in it, but 2 house seats, has a house seat per 520,000 people. Even if you're looking at bigger states, Alabama has one seat per 686,140 people, while neighboring Mississippi is one seat per 744,560 people. This has a real effect, in terms of the power of the individual voter, the moreso because this is also used to figure out electoral votes, which means that voters in some states don't just have more voice in picking their representatives, but in picking the president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
Epicurius posted:The House is probably the bigger problem than the Senate, and not just because of the gerrymandering, but also because, for size reasons, they haven't increased it since 1912. This means that the number of people per house seat varies pretty widely by state, and, unlike the Senate, where that's obvious, in the House, its much less so. This leads to some pretty strange things, like Delaware only having one house seat for 900,000 people, while New Hampshire, which only has a hundred thousand more people in it, but 2 house seats, has a house seat per 520,000 people. Even if you're looking at bigger states, Alabama has one seat per 686,140 people, while neighboring Mississippi is one seat per 744,560 people. This has a real effect, in terms of the power of the individual voter, the moreso because this is also used to figure out electoral votes, which means that voters in some states don't just have more voice in picking their representatives, but in picking the president. Yeah, the simplest way to make the electoral college defanged is to increase the size of the house a lot
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 04:11
|
|